What's new

US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

Pakistan’s Spy Agency Is Tied to Attack on U.S. Embassy
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and JANE PERLEZ
Published: September 22, 2011


WASHINGTON — The nation’s top military official said Thursday that Pakistan’s spy agency played a direct role in supporting the insurgents who carried out the deadly attack on the American Embassy in Kabul last week. It was the most serious charge that the United States has leveled against Pakistan in the decade that America has been at war in Afghanistan.
Enlarge This Image


Military-articleInline.jpg

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, left, and Adm. Mike Mullen testified Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.


euters

Adm. Mike Mullen said evidence showed that Pakistan's spy agency was behind the June attack on Kabul's Intercontinental Hotel.

In comments that were the first to directly link the spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, with an assault on the United States, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went further than any other American official in blaming the ISI for undermining the American effort in Afghanistan. His remarks were certain to further fray America’s shaky relationship with Pakistan, a nominal ally.

The United States has long said that Pakistan’s intelligence agency supports the Haqqani network, based in Pakistan’s tribal areas, as a way to extend Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. But Admiral Mullen made clear that he believed that the support extended to increasingly high-profile attacks in Afghanistan aimed directly at the United States.

These included a truck bombing at a NATO outpost south of Kabul on Sept. 10, which killed at least five people and wounded 77 coalition soldiers — one of the worst tolls for foreign troops in a single attack in the war — as well as the embassy assault that killed 16 Afghan police officers and civilians.

“With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” Admiral Mullen said in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We also have credible evidence that they were behind the June 28th attack against the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.” In short, he said, “the Haqqani network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.” His remarks were part of a deliberate effort by American officials to ratchet up pressure on Pakistan and perhaps pave the way for more American drone strikes or even cross-border raids into Pakistan to root out insurgents from their havens. American military officials refused to discuss what steps they were prepared to take, although Admiral Mullen’s statement made clear that taking on the Haqqanis had become an urgent priority.

On Thursday, Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s interior minister, rejected accusations by the United States of ISI involvement in the attacks in Afghanistan. “If you say that it is ISI involved in that attack, I categorically deny it,” he said in an interview with Reuters. “We have no such policy to attack or aid attack through Pakistani forces or through any Pakistani assistance.” He also said his government would “not allow” an American operation aimed at the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, a remote part of Pakistan’s lawless tribal region.

Mr. Malik seemed to indicate that American officials had threatened on Tuesday in meetings in Washington with the head of the ISI, Maj. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, that American troops were prepared to cross the border from Afghanistan to attack Haqqani militants. An American official would say only that David H. Petraeus, the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told General Pasha that the C.I.A. would continue its campaign of drone strikes against the Haqqanis in Pakistan and pursue them in Afghanistan.

“The Pakistan nation will not allow the boots on our ground, never,” Mr. Malik said in an interview with Reuters. “Our government is already cooperating with the U.S. — but they also must respect our sovereignty.”

A senior American official said Thursday that no decisions had been made on actions that the Obama administration might take against the Haqqanis.

American covert raids into Pakistan are rare — only two, including the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, have become public — but some American intelligence officials argue that more aggressive ground raids in Pakistan are necessary.

The United States gives Pakistan more than $2 billion in security assistance annually, although this summer the Obama administration decided to suspend or in some cases cancel about a third of that aid this year. Altogether, about $800 million in military aid and equipment could be affected.
1 2

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------

The suspension was intended to chasten Pakistan for expelling American military trainers this year and to press its army to fight militants more effectively. The decision was made after the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan, where the leader of Al Qaeda had been living comfortably near a top military academy.
Enlarge This Image

Faisal Mahmood/Reuters

Interior Minister Rehman Malik of Pakistan rejected American accusations.


Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era. Go to the Blog »

Related
U.S. Embassy and NATO Headquarters Attacked in Kabul (September 14, 2011)
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (315) »

Admiral Mullen is to retire at the end of this month, and coming from him the statements carried exceptional weight. For years he has been the American military official leading the effort to improve cooperation with the Pakistanis. But relations have reached a nadir since the Bin Laden raid. Pakistani officials were angered that they had not been told of the raid in advance, and questions remain about whether Pakistani intelligence was sheltering Bin Laden.

Although American military officials believe that the ISI is in many cases directing the Haqqani network to attack United States forces in Afghanistan, they did not go so far as to say on Thursday that the ISI specifically directed the assault on the American Embassy. American military officials did not describe the kind of support they believe the ISI gave the Haqqani network for the embassy attack, and also offered no evidence for their claim. In July 2008, the United States was able to determine that the ISI was behind the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul based on intercepted communications of ISI officers.

Admiral Mullen testified alongside Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, who told the committee that the attack on the embassy and the assassination this week of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the leader of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council and a former Afghan president, were “a sign of weakness in the insurgency.” He cast the attacks as signs that the Taliban had shifted to high-profile targets in an effort to disrupt the progress that the American military had made.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack on Mr. Rabbani, which has dealt a potentially devastating blow to efforts to negotiate a peace with the Taliban.

In his remarks to the committee, Admiral Mullen voiced a stern warning to Pakistani officials, who he said were undermining their own interests as well as American interests in the region.

“They may believe that by using these proxies, they are hedging their bets or redressing what they feel is an imbalance in regional power,” he said. “But in reality, they have already lost that bet. By exporting violence, they’ve eroded their internal security and their position in the region. They have undermined their international credibility and threatened their economic well-being.”

He also said he did not think he had wasted his time by putting so much effort into improving ties with Pakistan’s government.

“I’ve done this because I believe that a flawed and difficult relationship is better than no relationship at all,” he said. “Some may argue I’ve wasted my time, that Pakistan is no closer to us than before, and may now have drifted even further away. I disagree. Military cooperation again is warming.”
« Previous Page 1 2

Elisabeth Bumiller reported from Washington, and Jane Perlez from Islamabad, Pakistan. Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting from Washington.
 
.
His remarks were part of a deliberate effort by American officials to ratchet up pressure on Pakistan and perhaps pave the way for more American drone strikes or even cross-border raids into Pakistan to root out insurgents from their havens. American military officials refused to discuss what steps they were prepared to take, although Admiral Mullen’s statement made clear that taking on the Haqqanis had become an urgent priority

So more rain and raid of fire can be expected.:angel:
 
.
Yes, I don't think that's such a bad thing.


VCheng


Yes, I believe that's the plan, for both -- Does it concern you at all that DoD is in the lead in this?

The DoD is in the lead rather than State simply because the present civilian setup in Pakistan has a collective IQ in the single digits, if that, and thus direct engagement with the power center (i.e. PA) is necessary.

Yes, election year is coming up, but the American masses want the US to withdraw their troops, not open another front against a nation with 5 times the population of Afghanistan, & a very capable one as well when push comes to shove.

Obama is under pressure to withdraw, it is the DoD that is pushing the civilian government to sanction opening a new front against Pakistan, which I don't think will be happening. The US isn't in the economic position to act overtly against Pakistan, so overt action is out of the question.

I don't see much difference in the geopolitics of the region, the US will continue being frustrated with Pakistan in Afghanistan, the American people will express their frustration at the poor economic conditions, the US will conduct regular drone strikes, maybe expand the area in which the drones operate. But it will all be futile as they will feel the repercussions of these actions in Afghanistan. So things will not change drastically.

There is no need for a drastic change I agree. The game will be played slowly and methodically and Pakistan will lose.

Hi,

Gen Mullen is speaking openly---and he is challenging Kiyani openly---by making that challenge---he is also calling Kiyani a liar as well----. HE HAS CALLED kIYANI A LIAR ON THE WORLD MEDIA in front of the u s congress and the senate----by saying that pak is helping th ehaqqani network----.

No other general has been so openly been disgraced by a so called ally in the recent history.


Bottomline is---Kiyani is a coward---he doesnot have the ballz and guts to stand up and defend his honor----.

Khan Sahib: The concepts of "open challenge", "liar" and "disgrace" do NOT apply to international geopoliticis. Kayani is no coward, and having "balls" or not is a meaningless term. He will be forced into making decisions based on realpolitik, simple as that.
 
.
There is no need for a drastic change I agree. The game will be played slowly and methodically and Pakistan will lose.

How will Pakistan lose? I think we need to come out of this mindset that Pakistan will split up, it won't. The Pakistani government won't be taken over by the Taliban either as most Pakistanis do not believe in their version of Islam. In other words, Pakistan might go through some turbulent times as it is going through right now, but it is here to stay in the long run.

The US on the other hand is on a tight schedule, US influence is already getting reduced in Pakistan which is irking them, the Taliban are recapturing area in Afghanistan & not looking to negotiate with the US. The US is being viewed as an 'intruder', an 'outsider with vested interests' in Afghanistan. The US is looking to cut & run, & needs Pakistan's assistance in that. The civilian government has an enormous amount of pressure from the American public to pull the troops out, the economy is in dire straits, another war front cannot be opened. So how will the US win & Pakistan lose?
 
.
How will Pakistan lose? I think we need to come out of this mindset that Pakistan will split up, it won't. The Pakistani government won't be taken over by the Taliban either as most Pakistanis do not believe in their version of Islam. In other words, Pakistan might go through some turbulent times as it is going through right now, but it is here to stay in the long run.

The US on the other hand is on a tight schedule, US influence is already getting reduced in Pakistan which is irking them, the Taliban are recapturing area in Afghanistan & not looking to negotiate with the US. The US is being viewed as an 'intruder', an 'outsider with vested interests' in Afghanistan. The US is looking to cut & run, & needs Pakistan's assistance in that. So how will the US win & Pakistan lose?

Exactly. There can only be a win-win situation.
 
.
Pakistan’s Spy Agency Is Tied to Attack on U.S. Embassy
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and JANE PERLEZ
Published: September 22, 2011


WASHINGTON — The nation’s top military official said Thursday that Pakistan’s spy agency played a direct role in supporting the insurgents who carried out the deadly attack on the American Embassy in Kabul last week. It was the most serious charge that the United States has leveled against Pakistan in the decade that America has been at war in Afghanistan.
Enlarge This Image


Military-articleInline.jpg

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, left, and Adm. Mike Mullen testified Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.


euters

Adm. Mike Mullen said evidence showed that Pakistan's spy agency was behind the June attack on Kabul's Intercontinental Hotel.

In comments that were the first to directly link the spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, with an assault on the United States, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went further than any other American official in blaming the ISI for undermining the American effort in Afghanistan. His remarks were certain to further fray America’s shaky relationship with Pakistan, a nominal ally.

The United States has long said that Pakistan’s intelligence agency supports the Haqqani network, based in Pakistan’s tribal areas, as a way to extend Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. But Admiral Mullen made clear that he believed that the support extended to increasingly high-profile attacks in Afghanistan aimed directly at the United States.

These included a truck bombing at a NATO outpost south of Kabul on Sept. 10, which killed at least five people and wounded 77 coalition soldiers — one of the worst tolls for foreign troops in a single attack in the war — as well as the embassy assault that killed 16 Afghan police officers and civilians.

“With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” Admiral Mullen said in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We also have credible evidence that they were behind the June 28th attack against the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.” In short, he said, “the Haqqani network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.” His remarks were part of a deliberate effort by American officials to ratchet up pressure on Pakistan and perhaps pave the way for more American drone strikes or even cross-border raids into Pakistan to root out insurgents from their havens. American military officials refused to discuss what steps they were prepared to take, although Admiral Mullen’s statement made clear that taking on the Haqqanis had become an urgent priority.

On Thursday, Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s interior minister, rejected accusations by the United States of ISI involvement in the attacks in Afghanistan. “If you say that it is ISI involved in that attack, I categorically deny it,” he said in an interview with Reuters. “We have no such policy to attack or aid attack through Pakistani forces or through any Pakistani assistance.” He also said his government would “not allow” an American operation aimed at the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, a remote part of Pakistan’s lawless tribal region.

Mr. Malik seemed to indicate that American officials had threatened on Tuesday in meetings in Washington with the head of the ISI, Maj. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, that American troops were prepared to cross the border from Afghanistan to attack Haqqani militants. An American official would say only that David H. Petraeus, the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told General Pasha that the C.I.A. would continue its campaign of drone strikes against the Haqqanis in Pakistan and pursue them in Afghanistan.

“The Pakistan nation will not allow the boots on our ground, never,” Mr. Malik said in an interview with Reuters. “Our government is already cooperating with the U.S. — but they also must respect our sovereignty.”

A senior American official said Thursday that no decisions had been made on actions that the Obama administration might take against the Haqqanis.

American covert raids into Pakistan are rare — only two, including the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, have become public — but some American intelligence officials argue that more aggressive ground raids in Pakistan are necessary.

The United States gives Pakistan more than $2 billion in security assistance annually, although this summer the Obama administration decided to suspend or in some cases cancel about a third of that aid this year. Altogether, about $800 million in military aid and equipment could be affected.
1 2

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------

The suspension was intended to chasten Pakistan for expelling American military trainers this year and to press its army to fight militants more effectively. The decision was made after the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan, where the leader of Al Qaeda had been living comfortably near a top military academy.
Enlarge This Image

Faisal Mahmood/Reuters

Interior Minister Rehman Malik of Pakistan rejected American accusations.


Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era. Go to the Blog »

Related
U.S. Embassy and NATO Headquarters Attacked in Kabul (September 14, 2011)
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (315) »

Admiral Mullen is to retire at the end of this month, and coming from him the statements carried exceptional weight. For years he has been the American military official leading the effort to improve cooperation with the Pakistanis. But relations have reached a nadir since the Bin Laden raid. Pakistani officials were angered that they had not been told of the raid in advance, and questions remain about whether Pakistani intelligence was sheltering Bin Laden.

Although American military officials believe that the ISI is in many cases directing the Haqqani network to attack United States forces in Afghanistan, they did not go so far as to say on Thursday that the ISI specifically directed the assault on the American Embassy. American military officials did not describe the kind of support they believe the ISI gave the Haqqani network for the embassy attack, and also offered no evidence for their claim. In July 2008, the United States was able to determine that the ISI was behind the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul based on intercepted communications of ISI officers.

Admiral Mullen testified alongside Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, who told the committee that the attack on the embassy and the assassination this week of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the leader of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council and a former Afghan president, were “a sign of weakness in the insurgency.” He cast the attacks as signs that the Taliban had shifted to high-profile targets in an effort to disrupt the progress that the American military had made.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack on Mr. Rabbani, which has dealt a potentially devastating blow to efforts to negotiate a peace with the Taliban.

In his remarks to the committee, Admiral Mullen voiced a stern warning to Pakistani officials, who he said were undermining their own interests as well as American interests in the region.

“They may believe that by using these proxies, they are hedging their bets or redressing what they feel is an imbalance in regional power,” he said. “But in reality, they have already lost that bet. By exporting violence, they’ve eroded their internal security and their position in the region. They have undermined their international credibility and threatened their economic well-being.”

He also said he did not think he had wasted his time by putting so much effort into improving ties with Pakistan’s government.

“I’ve done this because I believe that a flawed and difficult relationship is better than no relationship at all,” he said. “Some may argue I’ve wasted my time, that Pakistan is no closer to us than before, and may now have drifted even further away. I disagree. Military cooperation again is warming.”
« Previous Page 1 2

Elisabeth Bumiller reported from Washington, and Jane Perlez from Islamabad, Pakistan. Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting from Washington.

Plz show the world the evidence. Plz call emergency UN security council meeting, show the evidence, get sanctions in place, get resolution passed on embargoing Pakistan and use of deadly force authorized. Get 3-4 aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea, start massing US forces on the Pak-Afghan border and destroy whatever is threatening you.

But then, what in hell is stopping you from doing all this ?? Why sitting in senate committees and giving such statements, by now US should have gone to war, as Pakistan is directly attacking its troops and they have evidence.
 
. .
Well, let's wait for events to unfold. I'd be willing to bet on a lopsided outcome with Pakistan losing it, lock, stock and barrel, and then some.

So instead of giving a rational argument for your belief, you're giving us your hunch & wanting to place a bet on it? That's fine with me btw, whatever floats your boat.
 
.
And the Bush statement, Saddam/Iraq is supporting AQ, and then just like WMD statement, we saw the real thing.

Dude it doesnt matter if US is right or wrong on the evidence part. If they think what they have is credible they will go the Iraq way after crossing a certain threshold and that is fast approaching given the tone and tenor of the statements and how it is getting more direct and blunt with each passing day.
 
.
And the Bush statement, Saddam/Iraq is supporting AQ, and then just like WMD statement, we saw the real thing.

Every country makes these errors.. More recently, we also saw the real thing about OBL not being anywhere in Pakistan and OBL being dead.. Didnt we?
 
.
So instead of giving a rational argument for your belief, you're giving us your hunch & wanting to place a bet on it? That's fine with me btw, whatever floats your boat.

Let's see the evidence for Pakistan: Failing economy, failing governance, failing policies, ..... the list goes on, and you want me to give you a rational argument for my belief?

My "hunch" is no more than reading the writing on the wall.
 
.
Let's see the evidence for Pakistan: Failing economy, failing governance, failing policies, ..... the list goes on, and you want me to give you a rational argument for my belief?

My "hunch" is no more than reading the writing on the wall.

The same thing can be said about the US as well. Although the Pakistan economy has been predicted to fail for a very long time, but it continues to move on for some reason.

What do you mean Pakistan will lose? How will it be any different to what Pakistan is currently facing right now if the situation remains the same, or if there is a direct US-Pakistan confrontation?
 
.
The same thing can be said about the US as well. Although the Pakistan economy has been predicted to fail for a very long time, but it continues to move on for some reason.

What do you mean Pakistan will lose? How will it be any different to what Pakistan is currently facing right now if the situation remains the same, or if there is a direct US-Pakistan confrontation?

No, the US is in a very different, and positive situation.

You ain't seen nuthin' yet for Pakistan. If you are thinking "Oh how much worse can it get?" trust me, it is about to get a whole lot worse.
 
.
No, the US is in a very different, and positive situation.

How is it a positive situation? Unemployment has risen to about 10%, growth of the economy is slower than Pakistan's, spending is increasing, debt is piling up, the IMF has practically declared the US insolvent, the US isn't winning any wars (Iraq, Afghanistan), poverty is increasing. Inflation is increasing, the dollar is losing its value, there are 'threats' of another recession coming up, food & gas prices are rising, there's almost no production/manufacturing industries here anymore. The government has very little credibility in the eyes of the people. Tell me, how is it a positive situation?
 
.
Oh please, grow up.

National interests are never served by being "pissed off" or by evaluation of strategic tactics as "cheap" or "honorable". In practice, ISI is no more than a bunch of glorified goons who believe in their own legend, nothing more. They will soon come to heel, one way or another.

you fail to see a larger picture my friend
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom